# Respect Others -- Things can (and do) get heated on this board. Any attempt to harass or threaten another poster, whether publically or privately, can and will result in a permanent ban. Based on the severity of the incident, it may also warrant report to law enforcement authorities. Keep civil and respectful of others. Also, please do NOT post others personal information (e.g. name, phone numbers, email, etc.) without their permission.

# Keep Threads on Target -- For the forum-challenged, a thread is a sequence of postings, or messages, related to a primary topic. For purposes of continuity and consistency, please keep ALL threads on target to their original purpose. If you want to deviate, start a new thread.

# Contain Conflict -- With religious discussion, disagreement is inevitable. Please be civil and keep conflict (provided it's on topic) within the thread it was posted in. If your conflict seems to be taking a thread off of its course, please start a new one.

I'm with iconodule here. Jackel's arguments are about as reasonable as 'your face' arguments.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I'm with iconodule here. Jackel's arguments are about as reasonable as 'your face' arguments.

Incorrect.

Stating something as an existing nothing is not reasonable.. Check the reasonableness of your arguments before suggesting others are magically not reasonable. If anything, I am the one getting a giggle out of this lol. I almost get the feeling that I am talking to Flat-Earthers :/ The same mentality of denial of reality in order to profess a fallacy. This to which dogma is used as an argument when one can not address the reality that their fallacy is just a logical fallacy. The circular logic of faith in the essence of Carl Sagan Dragons. Where is truth if it's nothing? What informational value is there when there is nothing there?

But this is true. Logically, the First Cause cannot be within the system of causation or be required to be under its same rules.

Firstly that is incorrect when the cause is the base substance of the entire system.. Your argument would self-collapse because you are attempting to suggest nothing is an existence, or form of existence and creation lol. Nothing can not even be a system, contain information, or be anything at all. Nice try though

Can anyone here ever show me a Nothing Object? I am curious to see something made of nothing to which transcends the capacity of existence.

Well, I think that so-called 'Dark Matter' fits that bill doesn't it (if it actually exists that is)?

"Remarkably, it turns out there is five times more material in clusters of galaxies than we would expect from the galaxies and hot gas we can see. Most of the stuff in clusters of galaxies is invisible and, since these are the largest structures in the Universe held together by gravity, scientists then conclude that most of the matter in the entire Universe is invisible."

"Higgs boson is a hypothetical elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the only Standard Model particle not yet observed. An experimental observation of it would help to explain how otherwise massless elementary particles cause matter to have mass. *If it exists*, the Higgs boson is an integral and pervasive component of the material world."

You were warned before to not criticize moderator action or inaction on public threads. For doing so yet again, and so soon after your previous warning for this, you are now on Post Moderation for the next 40 days.

If you think this action unfair, please appeal it to Fr. George.

- PeterTheAleut

« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 11:31:46 PM by PeterTheAleut »

Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.

One would think that the property of omnipotence would take care of God being bound by any human-delineated rules, but in any case all you might be able to prove here is that God is being poorly-described, not that he cannot exist.

Well, I think that so-called 'Dark Matter' fits that bill doesn't it (if it actually exists that is)?

"Remarkably, it turns out there is five times more material in clusters of galaxies than we would expect from the galaxies and hot gas we can see. Most of the stuff in clusters of galaxies is invisible and, since these are the largest structures in the Universe held together by gravity, scientists then conclude that most of the matter in the entire Universe is invisible."

"Higgs boson is a hypothetical elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the only Standard Model particle not yet observed. An experimental observation of it would help to explain how otherwise massless elementary particles cause matter to have mass. *If it exists*, the Higgs boson is an integral and pervasive component of the material world."

The Higgs or GOD particle is the metaphor or name given to a particle that gives rise to mass, to which is the basis of matter (energy in different states). This however, is not related to ground state except in how matter arises from ground state. In science the process of borrowing energy from the future can be described as follows:

This is where zero point energy, as discussed above, is zero in the form of something like a qbit (both 0,1)..(clarification) So unlike binary code where the classic bit is either a 0 or a 1, or two separate switches or elements, its more like the Qbits to which are both 0 and 1 at the same time. This gives you a zero value base complexity, and that means you can with enough increase in complexity achieve consciousness, and the probability of any pattern arising from zero without the need for intelligent intervention. Also, IBM has also proven this to an extent with the 4 atom quantum computer.

* 0 = zero = Qbit = (0,1) = energy (base to potential self-oscillating energy)* (0,1) = ground state* 0 = no other objects or complexities higher than zero (ground state)* 1= the only object even if there are an infinite number of other zero's (0,1)'s or points in space.. Because it's only relative to it's own point in space. Thus is zero point energy. However this could interact or interfere with other 0 points of energy and generate fluctuations and eventually the possibility of expansion (the Big Bang) and the rise to complexity. This being of course the Universe as we know it.

So in Quantum Electrodynamics, the particle and anti-particles are generated by borrowing energy from other zeros (0,1)'s (the future) to create a fluctuation that spawns them. So adding (0,1) to (0,1) gives you a possibility of getting (0,2). So these particles comeback together and destroy each other, leaving of course a byproduct that makes up the stuff of Stars and ourselves (matter).

non-existence / non-material / impossible:(0,0)- 0 literal energy- 0 Dimensional or Spatial Capacity- Can not be a person place or thing (noun), or can not have or gain mass. Nor can it be or have matter, energy, or informational value in the literal sense. It can not even be or contain itself.

One would think that the property of omnipotence would take care of God being bound by any human-delineated rules, but in any case all you might be able to prove here is that God is being poorly-described, not that he cannot exist.

Good thing Omipotence can't make nothing a something. or allow the possibility of omniscience to learn or create something to which it does not already know. They are self-collapsing contradictions.

# Respect Others -- Things can (and do) get heated on this board. Any attempt to harass or threaten another poster, whether publically or privately, can and will result in a permanent ban. Based on the severity of the incident, it may also warrant report to law enforcement authorities. Keep civil and respectful of others. Also, please do NOT post others personal information (e.g. name, phone numbers, email, etc.) without their permission.

# Keep Threads on Target -- For the forum-challenged, a thread is a sequence of postings, or messages, related to a primary topic. For purposes of continuity and consistency, please keep ALL threads on target to their original purpose. If you want to deviate, start a new thread.

# Contain Conflict -- With religious discussion, disagreement is inevitable. Please be civil and keep conflict (provided it's on topic) within the thread it was posted in. If your conflict seems to be taking a thread off of its course, please start a new one.

TheJackel,

Rather than take it upon yourself to moderate other posters, we the real moderators of this forum would rather you report the offending post to us via the "Report to Moderator" function (at the bottom right of each post) and let us act upon it as we deem appropriate. Otherwise, you appear to just be citing the rules in order to influence the debate in your favor.

# Respect Others -- Things can (and do) get heated on this board. Any attempt to harass or threaten another poster, whether publically or privately, can and will result in a permanent ban. Based on the severity of the incident, it may also warrant report to law enforcement authorities. Keep civil and respectful of others. Also, please do NOT post others personal information (e.g. name, phone numbers, email, etc.) without their permission.

# Keep Threads on Target -- For the forum-challenged, a thread is a sequence of postings, or messages, related to a primary topic. For purposes of continuity and consistency, please keep ALL threads on target to their original purpose. If you want to deviate, start a new thread.

# Contain Conflict -- With religious discussion, disagreement is inevitable. Please be civil and keep conflict (provided it's on topic) within the thread it was posted in. If your conflict seems to be taking a thread off of its course, please start a new one.

TheJackel,

Rather than take it upon yourself to moderate other posters, we the real moderators of this forum would rather you report the offending post to us via the "Report to Moderator" function (at the bottom right of each post) and let us act upon it as we deem appropriate. Otherwise, you appear to just be citing the rules in order to influence the debate in your favor.

- PeterTheAleutModerator

Nope, I reminded him of the rules to get him to engage in the discussion vs engage in social dogma to which is off-topic. There is no way that is trying to influence the debate because it has nothing to do with they actually subject of the debate... Otherwise noted.

# Respect Others -- Things can (and do) get heated on this board. Any attempt to harass or threaten another poster, whether publically or privately, can and will result in a permanent ban. Based on the severity of the incident, it may also warrant report to law enforcement authorities. Keep civil and respectful of others. Also, please do NOT post others personal information (e.g. name, phone numbers, email, etc.) without their permission.

# Keep Threads on Target -- For the forum-challenged, a thread is a sequence of postings, or messages, related to a primary topic. For purposes of continuity and consistency, please keep ALL threads on target to their original purpose. If you want to deviate, start a new thread.

# Contain Conflict -- With religious discussion, disagreement is inevitable. Please be civil and keep conflict (provided it's on topic) within the thread it was posted in. If your conflict seems to be taking a thread off of its course, please start a new one.

TheJackel,

Rather than take it upon yourself to moderate other posters, we the real moderators of this forum would rather you report the offending post to us via the "Report to Moderator" function (at the bottom right of each post) and let us act upon it as we deem appropriate. Otherwise, you appear to just be citing the rules in order to influence the debate in your favor.

- PeterTheAleutModerator

Nope, I reminded him of the rules to get him to engage in the discussion vs engage in social dogma to which is off-topic. There is no way that is trying to influence the debate because it has nothing to do with they actually subject of the debate... Otherwise noted.

And do note also that we don't permit public argument with moderatorial decisions here (posted in green text such as this). If you wish to question a moderator's decision, please do so via private message to that moderator and/or to Fr. George, our Global Moderator.

But this is true. Logically, the First Cause cannot be within the system of causation or be required to be under its same rules.

Firstly that is incorrect when the cause is the base substance of the entire system.. Your argument would self-collapse because you are attempting to suggest nothing is an existence, or form of existence and creation lol. Nothing can not even be a system, contain information, or be anything at all. Nice try though

This makes no sense. The cause is the base substance? Forgive me for asking the obvious, but what in the world caused the base substance?

I'm not suggesting nothing is an existence, I'm saying the First Cause cannot be under the same rules that caused entities are under.

This makes no sense. The cause is the base substance? Forgive me for asking the obvious, but what in the world caused the base substance?

Actually it makes total sense. Without substance there wouldn't be anything at all, and that is impossible. You get no structure, no dimensional value, no-capacity, informational value, no existence. I asked people here to draw me a face with no dimensional value for a reason. Or picture one with zero dimensional value. Nothing has no informational value because it can not contain any or have any information. Thus the only value being referenced here is the information in regards to the idea alone. :/

Quote

I'm not suggesting nothing is an existence, I'm saying the First Cause cannot be under the same rules that caused entities are under.

Actually you are if you are trying to state the object of your belief system is made of nothing. (isn't made of anything).

That only makes sense if one is a materialist though. Why have you decided that "spiritual" means non-existent? Why do the rules of caused, dependent things need to apply to the uncaused non-dependent First Cause?

That only makes sense if one is a materialist though. Why have you decided that "spiritual" means non-existent? Why do the rules of caused, dependent things need to apply to the uncaused non-dependent First Cause?

I haven not decided that spiritual means non-existent. I decided spirituality assumed to be made of nothing would not exist. And spatial capacity has no cause. it's an infinite volume because negative or no capacity is literally impossible to exist. Thus the substance to which it's comprised of equally has no cause.

Translation:

Existence exists without creation simply because the opposite can not exist. Negative objects, entities, spirits, GODS, ect do not exist because they cannot exist. A negative capacity can not contain anything! This directly translates to dimensional values. The rules are defined by the substance of existence and the base properties there of at the lowest possible state of complexity. That point before literal zero because literal zero is impossible.

It's well stated that there can be no Phenomenon without material-physicality or capacity. Otherwise you would be trying to argue a nothing capacity that translates to zero capacity or the inability to contain anything. That includes your supposed idea of GOD... It's far more realistic to believe something with consciousness to which has more Complexity than man could have set off the Big Bang than a an argument for a conscious entity that has zero complexity. Remember, the big Bang is not reference to the entire sum of existence or spatial capacity. It's an expansion of space-time (think of it as a flat disk galaxy like the milky-way within a much larger volume of space). It's expanding into an infinite volume. Our observable universe that derived from the Big Bang is actually finite. There is plenty room out there for something more realistic to exist that doesn't require logical fallacies in order to exist. At this point it only becomes opinion on whether or not you would call such entities as GODS.

So your GOD must have informational value, complexity, structure, and capacity in order to exist, to even be plausible. It doesn't matter of you want to believe it could otherwise because it's not going to change that from being a fact of reality. :/ And technically, consciousness is not ever uncased. It's a continuous emerging property that is always in the process of being created from the flow of information/energy. It can't exist without it, or exist without a place to exist in. It requires capacity of containment. Especially if you want to argue us all as being individuals and not some figment of the imagination of a solipsist mind. :/

If you wanted to say there is a dimensional plane out there called Heaven, I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as it retains to the rules of existence, and information theory. Under information theory, purpose is never lost and follows entropy. Maybe we can consciously exist in non-biological form.. But never as nothing. As you can see, more realistic views without logical fallacies don't equate to the dismantlement of your ideology. It just makes it more realistic and plausible.

One would think that the property of omnipotence would take care of God being bound by any human-delineated rules, but in any case all you might be able to prove here is that God is being poorly-described, not that he cannot exist.

Good thing Omipotence can't make nothing a something. or allow the possibility of omniscience to learn or create something to which it does not already know. They are self-collapsing contradictions.

As a rule the first approach to omnipotence as a property is to answer all "can God" questions with "yes!" and then try to figure out whether the predicate is even coherent. Therefore God can "make nothing a something", assuming that the phrase means something. It isn't valid to use contradictions with other divine attributes in refutation because one of those attributes says that God is incomprehensible; finding supposed contradictions proves nothing.

You are still applying the rules of the created realm to an uncreated God. Your assumptions are all based on this mistake. Your materialist standard for existence (an unproven presupposition) cannot apply to God, because he is utterly beyond existence or non-existence.

One would think that the property of omnipotence would take care of God being bound by any human-delineated rules, but in any case all you might be able to prove here is that God is being poorly-described, not that he cannot exist.

Good thing Omipotence can't make nothing a something. or allow the possibility of omniscience to learn or create something to which it does not already know. They are self-collapsing contradictions.

As a rule the first approach to omnipotence as a property is to answer all "can God" questions with "yes!" and then try to figure out whether the predicate is even coherent. Therefore God can "make nothing a something", assuming that the phrase means something. It isn't valid to use contradictions with other divine attributes in refutation because one of those attributes says that God is incomprehensible; finding supposed contradictions proves nothing.

Omnipotence is a logical fallacy.. Your inability to understand why that is just means you are not able to comprehend what contradicts it.

Quote

It isn't valid to use contradictions with other divine attributes in refutation because one of those attributes says that God is incomprehensible

No, this is a plea for ignorance.. And it is entirely a valid use of a contradiction. And to say GOD isn't made of anything completely explains why your GOD is incomprehensible because it wouldn't exist lol. You can't comprehend nothing (total utter irrelevance) as being something of relevance lol. WOW, do you people even know how to use the English Language, or what the definition of these words mean?. Nothing can't do anything lol.. Your ability to string words together to form logical fallacies will never make the logical fallacy even remotely possible, much less intellectually coherent.

Quote

attributes says that God is incomprehensible

This is always the common circular logic theists use when trying to reinforce total and utter logical failure. It's a neat little mind trick, and really shows why you don't understand the basics of brainwashing. You cling to trying to make your GOD undefinable while at the same time you try to define it lol. You better work on your debating skills in terms of stating your GOD as incomprehensible because you are contradicting yourself all over the place. Your argument that it's made of nothing and then say it's something is laughable. It's pretty much intentional stupidity. Before you can give a GOD any attributes, you will first need to validate it's existence and it's supposed attributes anyways lol. Oh, sorry its a total an utter nothing and infinite Carl Sagan Dragon.. So you have no position to be claiming GOD is anything at all, especially when you make the claim that it isn't made of anything at all..

LOL.. Nothing is all powerfully not Powerful.. And you can't make or create from a position of nothing, or from nothing LOL.. It would take literally intentional circular stupidity just even believe that. Your failure to comprehend a simple definition of a single word and why it collapses your entire argument is rather sadly amusing. :/ And I can understand why you cling to the term "incomprehensible" because it literally is incomprehensible if you try to make the object of your idea to be made of nothing! Sorry, but son, but your idea is not the object of your idea, and Objects can not be nothing lol.Edited: After the last post was made below.At this juncture there can be no further debate.. I fully comprehend you position at this point in time

You are still applying the rules of the created realm to an uncreated God. Your assumptions are all based on this mistake. Your materialist standard for existence (an unproven presupposition) cannot apply to God, because he is utterly beyond existence or non-existence.

That's because I can, and because I'm not stupid lol. I don't use intentional stupidity as an argument. Such as:

Quote

because he is utterly beyond existence or non-existence.

LOL. This has got to be the best one-liner I've ever heard I will gladly accept that argument lol

Wow, this guy tosses around the word "incorrect" as much as and as care free as Alfred... Debating style is about the same, too.

I'll lay this down in nerd terms for you. I am a computer programmer. A program I make doesn't exist until I make it. After I make the program I am not bound to the laws of the program since I made the program. Also, I am not a part of the program, but I am the first cause of the program.

I'm not sure why this argument is still going on. We've acknowledged, defined and debunked this argument already.

TheJackal is arguing from an empiricist perspective. I respect empiricism, and consider myself an empiricist. They make considerably more sense than the rationalist arguments, like the "Father" of modern philosophy, Descartes. Guys like him are just annoying. I mean, an evil deity manipulating mathematics? Come on.

However, Orthodox Christianity did not develop in the same time period or cultural framework as these forms of Western thought, and do not conform to their comfortable little categories. This leads many to dismiss it because it doesn't fit their paradigm, and gave me a rough time, coming from a Western background as a Reformation-era Christian (Presbyterian). Orthodoxy didn't fit in my worldview, and therefore it just didn't make logical sense. So, I understand the frustration.

The two big arguments here have already been defined. Our atheist friend has constructed arguments against a pagan god, who operates in the system, and when we point that out, he begins arguing against a "god of the gaps" (a "nothing of something") that we use to halt the infinite regress of creation, and states that this is a logical fallacy.

The arguments presented state that God must conform to the created world in order to be believed in. Our empiricist friend, our materialist friend, wants a God that can be easily observed, measured and repeated. I.e., he wants a containable and limited deity in which to believe. Fortunately, we do not have a God which is so frail.

If you want a measureable, observable deity...what good is it? If you limit it and define it clearly so that there is nothing transcendent, nothing mysterious, nothing awesome about it...what answers have you really arrived at? What revelation is there to have? You're seeking a god of which we have no knowledge. I have never encountered such a deity. If I did, why would I even bother to mention it? It doesn't seem like it would be anything noteworthy anyway. It could not solve our problems or save our souls. It would just be a waste of time.

Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy

That only makes sense if one is a materialist though. Why have you decided that "spiritual" means non-existent? Why do the rules of caused, dependent things need to apply to the uncaused non-dependent First Cause?

I haven not decided that spiritual means non-existent. I decided spirituality assumed to be made of nothing would not exist. And spatial capacity has no cause. it's an infinite volume because negative or no capacity is literally impossible to exist. Thus the substance to which it's comprised of equally has no cause.

All logical arguments are composed of three things. First, we have terms. Terms are either clearly defined or ambiguous. Second, there are statements or premises. These statements are either true or false. Finally, you have the formal structure of an argument that is either valid, or invalid. In order create a good argument, a person must have clearly defined terms, premises that are true, and valid formal logic. In order to demosntrate an error in another person's reasoning, all one has to do is show that the either the terms are unclear, the permises are false, or the reasoning is invalid. I think I can show that your argument here is a bad argument by demstrating the the ambiguity of of the terms you use to define your opponent's position, which leads you to create the false premise that Theists/non-materialists believe in spirits that are nothing. You begin by stating that spirits are made of nothing. The term that is ambiguous here is "made of nothing". We need to be clear about what you mean by this and what a Theist means by this because I am certain that here is where the disconnect exists. For the Theist to say that God is made of nothing, does not mean what you think they mean. First,what the Theist means is that God is not made, not that he is not existent, not that there is no God, but simply that God is not made. He is not composed of parts, and he is uncaused and non-contingent. For this reason he is the sufficient reason for his own existence. This is a far cry from your undederstanding of the term, and you have yet to address this understanding. Second, by saying that God is not a thing, we are not saying that he is nothing in the term of non-existence. We are saying that he is not a thing, that he is not an object for us to analyze but absolute subject, the ultimate "I". Again, there is no suggestion here of non-existence, but rather of absolute existence. Now God and non-existence are on completely opposite ends of the spectrum (Though God is even beyond this spectrum itself, but I am using this convention to demonstrate a point). On the one hand terms like like "thing" and "made" don't apply to God because he is absolute subsistent existence, beyond such limits. On the other hand "thing" and "made" don't apply to non-existence for completely different reasons, because non-existence is an entirely empty category. So the non-application of these terms to God and non-existence is for two entirely different reasons, and is NO way a univocal non-application. Thus we say of God that he is no-thing, or no given particular thing that we can analyze, because God is beyond such a category. When we say that non-existence is nothing that is because it doesn't exist. Until you clarify the term "not made" and understand what we actually believe about God, you will not be able to even begin engaging us in a fruitful discussion, regardless of whether you agree with us or not.

« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 01:00:54 PM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Omnipotence is a logical fallacy.. Your inability to understand why that is just means you are not able to comprehend what contradicts it.

You say this as if logical fallacy were actually expected to be convincing. It's apparent you will indulge in typical Colluphidist lack of reply when I say so, but your failure to reconcile omnipotence with the other attributes of the Deity doesn't compel me, even less so than my refusal to accept your statements compels you. It has already be ascribed to God that he is incomprehensible, so it is unsurprising that one can find apparent contradictions.

The next step past that lies in a very careful examination of what "capability" means, since after all one could argue that if God has a definite nature and will (which as far as I am concerned are the only really important fundamental properties of God), He is "limited" in the sense that he acts in accordance with that will. The root issue here, really, is that this isn't what believers mean when they say that He is omnipotent.

And that takes us to empiricism. I'm an empiricist about God; you are not. I may not be able to describe God adequately to you (and indeed I am bound to say that eventually some degree of insurmountable inaccuracy is going to be reached) but when it comes to that describing surely people who claim to know God have a credibility in talking about Him that you, as someone who claims to not know God, inevitably lack. You are playing a sort of Socratic game here but in the end it is they who are the authority on God, not you, so that you really are obligated to accept their corrections to the definition. If they say, "well, no, in the sense that you are trying to use the word, God isn't omnipotent, but His power over creation is nonetheless not bound by any physical law", then it is they who set the agenda, not you; the concession doesn't amount to an admission that God doesn't exist, but merely that He has been poorly described. And since poverty of description is already stated as a principle, that doesn't get us anywhere except for really pinning down your insistence that your reasoning is a sufficiently good test, which I would absolutely dispute.

So the first thing we must do is establish the differences between truth, faith, and belief.. You can say this is Truth VS Fallacy, and that we all know truth only comes to be realized when it has faced rigorously harsh doses of self scrutiny. So what is the differences between truth, belief, and faith? Well, how about we find out by taking a closer look at each of these terms so we can establish a foundation for determining how they apply to the world we live in.

As always, you are assuming the conclusion in your premise, which is not an argument, but an assertion. It's the logical fallacy of begging the question. You start by conflating faith and belief with fallacy, and disregard the possibility of faith actually being faith in that which is true, without even defending this position. If truth is the correspondence between what is said or thought and what actually is, then there is no reason to assume that faith contradicts truth. If what I believe, whether I reach that conclusion through rigorous systematic logic, empirical verification, or faithful assent to Divine Revelation, is a correspondence with reality, then I have truth. Most things in life that we believe, we actually accept by faith. That doesn't make them any less true, it just means that I am putting my trust in some one else to be speaking the truth. Examples of facts in life that I accept by faith:1. George Washington existed. I have never done any historical investigation of my own into the existence or non-existence of this matter, so I have put my faith in the authorities that say that he did exist. 2. It is impossible to square a circle. I have never seen the arguments for against, but I believe it to be true based on what I have been told. 3. The center of a cell is the nucleus and contains DNA. Do you think I have ever done a scientific experiment in order to conclude that this is true? Absolutely not. But I have faith in the idea that the people who have done the proper experiments are speaking the truth.Of course these are matters of human faith, and not the Divine gift of Faith that comes from God, but you see that we know many things even without rigorous demonstration.

* Truth: substantiated unarguable information that is validated without possible argument against, or to where evidence is sufficient to give it substantial value.

Actually, truth is the correspondence of what a person says or thinks with reality. Or, as Aristotle says, saying what is, is, and what is not, is not. The Epicureans new that matter was composed of atoms well before there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate this. They possessed truth even without rigorous demonstration.

* Faith: The hoping of what you think is divine truth is actually true when there is no means of validation to give it substantiation.. It's a means to keep one believing irregardless if it's proven false, irrelevant, as a logical fallacy, or simply impossible.

Wrong again. Faith is personal and relational matter. Like I know that my parents love me, without the possibility of rigorous demonstration, I still have good reason to believe they love me because I know them through the relationship they have with me. Similarly, I know that there is a God and that he loves me because of the personal impact he has on my life. Further, I have other substantial reasons for believing in God. First, there are the logical proofs for the existence of God (not their caricatures).Next, there is the testimony of martyrs, who were very wise, yet were willing to give up their lives for the truth.Next, is the testimony of the saints, who were very wise, and worthy of trust, who experienced the reality of God in profound ways, and have shared that reality with us. Next there are the probable arguments for the existence of God. All of these give us reason to believe beyond just wanting to believe. Also, if it was absolutely logically impossible for God not to exist, or we knew atheism to be true, of course I would not believe in God. As it stands, the very opposite is true.

A: Religion - believing in what you perceive to be true irregardless of validity, and in this case it is highly dependent on Faith for support. Otherwise a collapse of belief would likely occur (me as an example of a former Christian), or the denial of reality will likely occur in order for a belief to be held.

You must have been a fundamentalist protestant, because there is nothing in the Apostolic Faith that is invalid nor anything that contradicts reality.

B: Science, logic, and reason - Believing what what is true by the evidence to which supports it.

Human Reason is all of the powers of the human person that are used to determine truth, outside of Divine Faith.Logic is actually not evidence based, but the formal structure of how the mind thinks in order to achieve valid conclusions.The term science is so misapplied in modern society, that its ridiculous. Science is the study of anything in it's ultimate causes.1. Philosophy = The Science that studies the ultimate causes of reality via human reason.2. Theology = The Science of THE ultimate cause, God, via Divine Revelation3. Natural Science = The study of the material and efficient causes of reality via human reason and observation.4. Empirical Science = The science that studies material causes via empirical/sensory investigation. 5. Mathematics = The science of numbersETC. ETC. ETC.

Absolute substantiated fact = Existence can be verified without argument to exist simply because nonexistence can not be a literal person, place, or thing of existence. Nonexistence can not be a literal noun!

Which one has intellectual integrity?* The one with all the evidence to support it

Yes and no. I think that there are plenty of valid rational arguments in favor of the existence of God. That being said, if God were to directly reveal himself to some one, outside of empirically verifiability, and that person did not accept the reality of God, such a person would not have intellectual integrity.

* The one willing to self-scrutinize it's beliefs in favor of reaching for a definable and tangible truth based on the Scientific Method, logic, and reason to where the evidence dictates the value of the belief system in order to avoid being dictated or clung to logical fallacies.

Math is not based on the scientific method. Does this mean that Mathematicians have no intellectual integrity?

It does not take blind faith to believe in God. There are plenty of rational reasons. Further, there is the testimony of the saints and martyrs, as well as the effects that God has on our lives. I will address your article in another post.

« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 01:42:16 PM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

But this is true. Logically, the First Cause cannot be within the system of causation or be required to be under its same rules.

Firstly that is incorrect when the cause is the base substance of the entire system.. Your argument would self-collapse because you are attempting to suggest nothing is an existence, or form of existence and creation lol. Nothing can not even be a system, contain information, or be anything at all. Nice try though

Because the First Cause is the First Cause, he is by nature not part of the system. Because, as I have demonstrated elsewhere, that he is simple and uncomposed, he is completely different than the beings in the system. Our position is not that the first cause is the base substance of the system. If that were the case, God would be a contingent limited being, and then would need a cause, making him not the first cause, but that is a contradiction. You are grasping at straws buddy.

« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 01:45:57 PM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

One would think that the property of omnipotence would take care of God being bound by any human-delineated rules, but in any case all you might be able to prove here is that God is being poorly-described, not that he cannot exist.

Good thing Omipotence can't make nothing a something. or allow the possibility of omniscience to learn or create something to which it does not already know. They are self-collapsing contradictions.

Why don't you elaborate on why you see a contradiction here. I am ceratain that I can refute your position.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

You are still applying the rules of the created realm to an uncreated God. Your assumptions are all based on this mistake. Your materialist standard for existence (an unproven presupposition) cannot apply to God, because he is utterly beyond existence or non-existence.

That's because I can, and because I'm not stupid lol. I don't use intentional stupidity as an argument. Such as:

Quote

because he is utterly beyond existence or non-existence.

LOL. This has got to be the best one-liner I've ever heard I will gladly accept that argument lol

Ah, brilliance on display! When faced with an argument you can't refute, you resort to "LOL, you're stupid."

Ah, brilliance on display! When faced with an argument you can't refute, you resort to "LOL, you're stupid."

Actually not.. It's mostly teabaggery pleading for ignorance because they are not intelligent enough to comprehend the definition of Nothing. LOL. So of course I am going to laugh at that. They can try and rationalize the logical fallacy into their own meaning of truth, or self-invented ideological concept of what they think truth is, and it will not ever make nothing be anything more than total utter irrelevance.. Intentional stupidity doesn't make anyone here at all intelligent. It Just makes people begging for ignorance because that's all they have to go on... No different than Flat Earthers begging for peoples ignorance to believe the Earth is Flat when it's not.. NEWS FLASH, your beliefs do not bend reality in accordance to your beliefs lol. False truth or delusional interpretations of, will never make them true. The only truth to it is the toss salad of words you used to construct the fallacy into an ideological construct. That's a psychological problem or an educational failure problem.

And that is why the argument that your GOD exists outside existence and non-existence is just a perfect example of intentional stupidity (this doesn't make them dumb, just obviously intentionally playing dumb.. Kind of like lying for Jesus).

Quote

When faced with an argument you can't refute,

Actually I did refute it. You also might want to learn what words actually mean.

I have.. learn how to use English. The definitions of words are not going to bend to your ideology lol.. Nothing will remain to be literally nothing. It's irrelevant if you think it adheres to your beliefs or not. It's not going to magically change the definition of nothing. What's even worse is that you people don't even seem to know the what the definition of "incomprehensible" means to understand that your use of it contradicts your entire argument. It's like watching a toss salad of words hit the screen to which have been typed by someone who seems to have nobody mentally home to comprehend what they mean.

Quote

It has already be ascribed to God that he is incomprehensible, so it is unsurprising that one can find apparent contradictions.

This alone is a self-collapsing contradiction lol.. Worse of all, it means you could never conceive, experience, touch, smell, feel, interact with, or even talk to even after your death. Pretty funny when you here the catch phrase "meet your maker". o.O Well, I can't ever meet nothing because it doesn't exist. Yes I can't comprehend nothing being something because it doesn't exist!

if it exists, there can not be nothing by definition. Thus nothing does not exist. It can not be a literal person, place, or thing... It's amazing that information is made of something isn't it . There is tangible value. Nothing has no value what-so-ever. Your arguments are telling me that your GOD has no literal value. It's as if you would be insulted to know that your GOD would require value beyond just the idea. It makes no logical sense at all.

And our belief that God is nothing? Since "if it exists" then it can't be nothing.

Incorrect. Your belief in a GOD is not the GOD! It's not the object itself. Trying to say the object itself is made of nothing makes your belief nothing more than irrelevance. You can't say the object of your belief is made of nothing. You are killing your own belief, or making it look entirely irrelevant. :/ .. If you require logical fallacies to believe in your GOD, you have issues to deal with.. They aren't required or necessary :/ I've been telling this to fellow Christians for years. You think putting a GOD into realistic limits would magically make it not a GOD to you. If you wanted a more solid base of argument for it's existence, you are going to need to stop assigning it attributes of nothing. I'm not sure where the stupidity of this kind of argument began in religion, but it's really not helping religious people look at all intelligent :/ So what if it would be bound to the same rules we are.. You could still argue it as First being, or most powerful of all beings and have it still be GOD like and realistically plausible.. The problem with some religions is that they fantasize too much! To much to the point where they make their ideology just look like nothing but mythical constructs. I never once considered the GOD I believed in as being nothing, or made of nothing, or even outside of existence/capacity. Materialism isn't even what had driven me away from the concept. I don't worship things of power, or anything as GOD. Especially those to have been said to have committed genocide in an act of pure hypocrisy of the 10 commandments. I don't follow leaders that can't lead by example to set a premise for everyone to follow.. It's simply no longer applicable to me on all levels to which includes philosophical levels. I really don't care if it were to exist or not as it's not relevant to me to worship. I even would think that the entity in question would find it rather annoying to have people worship it. I know I would, it would be like a bunch of groupies that never leave you alone "/ .. So it's just not my thing. So I would appreciate it if you stop assuming my position of materialism is the sola cause of my Atheism.

Another Plausible answer would be:

Existence was once one Universe where one Being evolved and became powerful enough to create other Universes within his own Universe.. Since the capacity volume of infinity would allow it, there wouldn't be a logical problem with it. I'm actually trying to help you out here.

Of course it is, this whole post will be incorrect too and the next and the next. I should go ahead and make the argument you are going to make to my post now so you don't have to bother, that's how repetitive and predictable you are.

Quote

Your belief in a GOD is not the GOD! It's not the object itself. Trying to say the object itself is made of nothing makes your belief nothing more than irrelevance.

I did not try to say that the object is made of nothing, please quote me on where I have said this.

Quote

You can't say the object of your belief is made of nothing.

Right.

Quote

You are killing your own belief, or making it look entirely irrelevant. :/

Yet I never claimed God is nothing, or the object itself is nothing. Why are you trying to put words into my mouth? Let's go back to my last question. I asked you that our belief in God is nothing, you hold pretty firmly that we worship nothing. However as you mentioned two posts above, if it exists therefore it cannot be nothing. So if God does exist, then He cannot be nothing.

You are painting a very distorted and false caricature of me.

Quote

If you require logical fallacies to believe in your GOD, you have issues to deal with..

I do not require logical fallacies to believe in God. And no where have I appealed to using logic to appeal to God anywhere. In fact I have actually started engaging with my fellow Christians on the arguments they had against infinite regression.

I don't think you will find anyone on this forum who believes in God by a logical fallacy.

Quote

You think putting a GOD into realistic limits would magically make it not a GOD to you.

There are limitations on our own logic and reason with God. If a god was able to be comprehended it's not a god at all.

Quote

if you wanted a more solid base of argument for it's existence, you are going to need to stop assigning it attributes of nothing.

I have yet assign it one attribute of nothing...

Quote

I'm not sure where the stupidity of this kind of argument began in religion, but it's really not helping religious people look at all intelligent :/ So what if it would be bound to the same rules we are.. You could still argue it as First being, or most powerful of all beings and have it still be GOD like and realistically plausible.. The problem with some religions is that they fantasize too much!

If a god is bounded by our rules its not a god, by definition.

Fantasize? Can't wait to hear this.

Quote

To much to the point where they make their ideology just look like nothing but mythical constructs.

Right because Christianity is based on a mythical construct *cough*Christ*cough*.

Quote

I never once considered the GOD I believed in as being nothing, or made of nothing, or even outside of existence/capacity.

So you held God in a Mormon viewpoint.

Quote

Materialism isn't even what had driven me away from the concept. I don't worship things of power, or anything as GOD. Especially those to have been said to have committed genocide in an act of pure hypocrisy of the 10 commandments.

Comitted genocide huh? I'm just curious but what was unjust about killing the wicked and evil doers whom willing chose not to be righteous?

Quote

I don't follow leaders that can't lead by example to set a premise for everyone to follow..

Jesus did.

Quote

It's simply no longer applicable to me on all levels to which includes philosophical levels. I really don't care if it were to exist or not as it's not relevant to me to worship.

So you don't care if God exists or not. And if He did exist what then?

Quote

I even would think that the entity in question would find it rather annoying to have people worship it.

Good thing that's not what God actually "thinks".

Quote

I know I would, it would be like a bunch of groupies that never leave you alone "/ .. So it's just not my thing.

What is the point of all this babble?

Quote

So I would appreciate it if you stop assuming my position of materialism is the sola cause of my Atheism.

I never assumed your position as such.

Quote

Existence was once one Universe where one Being evolved and became powerful enough to create other Universes within his own Universe..

Proof?

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

Look, the people in the philosophy department, most of whom are irreligious, will positively sneer at that statement. The definitions of words are hammered on constantly to make them match reality. I don't worship a definition: I worship God who has a name.

And while you are picking on my English, you could omit yourself such not-exactly-grammatical statements as

Quote

Nothing will remain to be literally nothing.

...which is rather a "toss salad of words" itself.

Quote

Quote

It has already be ascribed to God that he is incomprehensible, so it is unsurprising that one can find apparent contradictions.

This alone is a self-collapsing contradiction lol..

No, it isn't. And you haven't the slightest hope of proving to me that your claim is true, not because I am a believer, but because your arguments are so sloppy.